"A [preacher] who does not love art, poetry, music and nature can be dangerous. Blindness and deafness toward the beautiful are not incidental; they are necessarily reflected in his [preaching]." — BXVI

30 March 2013

A little Holy Saturday docility seems to be in order

For all those freakin' out about Pope Francis and his rubric-breaking Holy Thursday liturgy, please take a moment. . .read, reflect, pray. . .

I answer that. . .prudence is concerned with particular matters of action, and since such matters are of infinite variety, no one man can consider them all sufficiently; nor can this be done quickly, for it requires length of time. Hence in matters of prudence man stands in very great need of being taught by others, especially by old folk who have acquired a sane understanding of the ends in practical matters. Wherefore the Philosopher says (Ethic. vi, 11): "It is right to pay no less attention to the undemonstrated assertions and opinions of such persons as are experienced, older than we are, and prudent, than to their demonstrations, for their experience gives them an insight into principles." Thus it is written (Proverbs 3:5): "Lean not on thy own prudence," and (Sirach 6:35): "Stand in the multitude of the ancients" (i.e. the old men), "that are wise, and join thyself from thy heart to their wisdom." Now it is a mark of docility to be ready to be taught: and consequently docility is fittingly reckoned a part of prudence.

My point here is this: part of the ministry of Peter is to teach. We need to be good students and learn what the Holy Father is trying to teach us. Nothing says we have to like the lesson, agree with it, or even come to believe that the lesson is a good one. It might not be. But docility (as a part of prudence) requires that we at least take a deep breath, set aside our objections, and pay attention.

(Let me add here: anyone who knows me well will snort out loud to hear that I'm preaching docility. Eight years in a secular humanities grad program does not prepare one for a life of docile learning. Yes, the irony of me posting on prudence and docility is rich. Despite the irony, truth is truth.)

13 comments:

I've got nothing against including women in the Holy Thursday Rite. I've got nothing against the Pope changing the rubrics for pastoral reasons (after all, he *is* the competent authority of the Roman Church and his own Archdiocese in particular). I would just ask that the Holy Father issue a clarifying statement regarding the norms of the rite throughout the world.

Matt, I understand the desire for such a statement, but there's no need for one. The rubrics are crystal clear. Popes have frequently departed from liturgical norms w/o abrogating those norms. If a parish priest says, "I can do whatever I want with the Mass b/c Pope XYZ did it. . .," then he's simply wrong. He cannot. Citing the Pope's violation of the rubrics might silence Father's critics. . .but he's still wrong.

Yes Father, I agree completely. My desire for a statement is more pragmatic. With all the discussion on the topic right now, it's a perfect teachable moment. And if the Pope decided that a more permanent change was needed, it would be a perfect time to both promulgate the change and catechize the reasons for it.

I certainly understand that pragmatic desire. . .keep in mind though: F1 is a Latin American of Italian descent. . .it's not likely that he shares our American sense of pragmatism! Of course, he is a Jesuit, so maybe, just maybe. . .

Liturgically, I like to think of myself as a classicist. Self-serving, obviously. So I am not thrilled with this Pope's foray into using the Holy Thursday mandatum to make points for his personal agenda. But I ask this question: how would liturgical development be possible had the rubrics always been followed? Like it or not, call it organic or not, people introduce novelties into ritual. Some turn out to be "organic developments" and some "regrettable deviations." And that is decided almost always after the fact.

Oddly, for someone seen as such a novelty, his way of saying Mass --literally-- reminds me of the priests I served as a pre-VatII altar boy. They often semi-muttered their way through the Latin text, showed great and focussed devotion at the Consecration and the Elevations, and got revved up in the pulpit. In that way, for better or worse, Francis seems very liturgically "traditional."

Historically speaking, "following the rubrics" is a modern notion. Before Trent, there were huge variations in how the Mass was celebrated across the Church. Think about it: no telephones, internet, no way to communicate quickly and efficiently. Rubrics were handed on mostly by example and practice. Latin served to unite the Church across nations/cultures but gestures, etc. could vary widely. The Tridentine Mass served to bring the rubrics into some kind of uniformity but that took decades. Rites from various religious orders--like the Dominican Rite--were probably more uniformly celebrated b/c the communities celebrating them were smaller and more culturally uniform.

Rubric-breaking as such is not a problem for me. . .not all rubrics are created equal nor do all of them serve the same purpose. What I can't tolerate is willful violations of important rubrics designed to express the celebrant's personal ideological preferences...e.g. using "all" instead of "many" b/c the priest "feels" that "many" is somehow exclusive; or, refusing to use masculine pronouns and titles for persons of the Trinity b/c the priest has drunk the feminist kool-aid.

Footwashing is mandated in Exodus 30 (and reported in Exodus 40) in the context of the establishment of the levitical priesthood, before they were to approach the altar of sacrifice. It's part of the reason priests to this day are instructed to wash hands before celebrating. In view of Jesus's establishment of his own priesthood, it is impossible to dismiss his act at the Last Supper as merely a call to mutual service. Had he wished to do merely the latter, he might have waited on them at table or rendered some other service. A Catholic reading of Scripture does not permit us to regard Jesus's decision to wash the feet of the apostles as random coincidence. That is why it's a big deal and always deeply imprudent to include women in the ceremony, notwithstanding its very recent introduction into the liturgy.